Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course they do. The question is this: What evidence and arguments do they bring to support their position? People have said that spiritual deficiency (e.g., purposefully and stubbornly rejecting God, or being swayed by Satan, prideful ego, etc.) is the explanation for why I don't believe that Biblical claims are historically accurate or scientifically plausible. I can offer innumerable scientific and historical reasons for my beliefs, but what can they offer to support their position?...
you made a really really good point a few pages back. here it is:
in post # 2980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
There are reasonably well documented cases of child prodigies with amazing musical abilities and "reincarnation stories" of children speaking languages they've supposedly never heard, etc. Even though these are anecdotal, I take them seriously because there are simply so many of them that I find it unlikely that every single one of them can be traced back to some sort of fraud or whatever. As I've mentioned in other threads, I also take the "near death experience" data seriously for similar reasons.
that is a very common sense, practical, approach. It also displays wisdom and discernment.
To rely on just a single yardstick for truth (such as "scientific proof") is to have a very narrow limited constricted circumscribed set of information. We are not meant to rely on only one way to determine truth. We are to use and develop a whole range of talents, skills, gifts, and abilities that are innate to who we are as a human being. We remain at a stilted and stunted and stagnant place of development if we do not access and use those talents we have.
We are to develop "discernment" we are to learn how to be discerning. One example is your post above. You recognize with good reason there is valid information to consider that is outside the constricted narrow box of "scientific proof." Your reasons for doing so are sound. Lots of accounts, they can't all be fraud. Same goes for the holy wisdom of the ages that spans culture, time, civilizations across a vast sweeping arc with regards to the relationship we have with the Creator.
Science tells us "something" history tells us "something" but they are not complete or comprehensive or accurate and we know that because we are developing discernment to draw on many sources, evaluate them, determine which are trustworthy or have something of value to offer us.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 02-19-2018 at 01:23 PM..
You conflate religious BELIEFS, which are created by human minds, with belief in God. They are NOT the same thing. Human religious beliefs run from the absurd to the ridiculous, some totally devoid of any grounding in reality. They are defended NOT because they make sense but because their believers think they defend God. Most do the exact opposite and undermine belief in God because they are so irrational. Science is how we keep rationality in our beliefs about God. When it is ignored or denigrated the beliefs remain unhinged from reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
what a very strange statement.
What is strange is how you misstate, misrepresent and/or totally misconstrue anything that you disagree with.
Quote:
I agree with what Gaylen wrote a few posts ago (post #3000, excerpt below), that science has very little to say one way or the other about God.
no one is denigrating or ignoring science. However, if you look to science to guide your "beliefs about God" then you are the person looking in the cookbook to find out how to repair a car. it is irrational to do so.
from post #3000
Since our reality IS God, then science is finding out a lot about God. I look to science to GROUND my beliefs about God in reality and rationality, NOT magic and superstition. What is irrational is to look to the human-created beliefs about God without discernment and taking everything ancient humans have said about God as truth. When you claim to employ discernment but you use NO standard for Truth, then that is NOT discernment. That is self-deception.
Last edited by MysticPhD; 02-19-2018 at 01:41 PM..
religion seeks to address: ethics, integrity, compassion, generosity, kindness, honesty, dignity, respect, humbleness, bringing the sacred into the mundane, accountability, personal responsibility, bringing peace into the world, being in relationship with the Creator.
do you look to science for guidance in those arenas? Where do you look to for guidance in those areas in terms of authority, resources, subject matter expertise, instructions, practical how-to steps? What is the "gold standard" for you in those areas in being held to a high level of integrity and personal responsibility?
No one will claim that sociology or psychology are exact sciences, but they use scientific method to address those questions, yes. "enlightened self-interest" might be considered a "gold standard."
you have just said that "science doesn't have much to say either way about the Creator."
so how can you use science to gauge traits of God to be "less scientifically credible."
You have said science is not a valid measuring stick for God, therefore it is irrational to use science as, well, a measuring stick for God.
You are failing to acknowledge a distinction that I have made numerous times.(Another example of what I mentioned earlier about your recurring failure to take context into account.) The term 'God' is extremely vague, so you need to be careful to distinguish between questions about existence verses questions about the properties of the particular God you are saying does or does not exist. Many concepts of God are so liberal or minimal that science can't really address the question of existence. E.g., if the only property you attribute to God is "Creator" then science can't really address questions abut the existence of God because the concept of "creator" is so loose that there is no basis for empirical testing. Science depends on testable hypothesis. Many conceptions of "creator" are so vague that there is simply nothing for empirical methods to test. I think that MPhD's conception of God falls into this category: Whatever science finds about nature is an attribute of God. Period. How does science test that? It doesn't.
But the more properties you add to your conception of God, the more opportunity there is for science and/or logic to kick into action. If you insist that God is a type of spiritual being who has the capacity to implant the seed of a child into the belly of a virgin, then science can say with reasonably high confidence that God probably does not exist.
In general, the more details you reveal about your conception of God's attributes, the more you leave room for science and logic to assess you view (and, generally speaking, the less probable the existence of that God becomes).
No one will claim that sociology or psychology are exact sciences, but they use scientific method to address those questions, yes. "enlightened self-interest" might be considered a "gold standard."
i have no idea what you mean by "enlightened self interest"
what is it?
... Many conceptions of "creator" are so vague that there is simply nothing for empirical methods to test. I think that MPhD's conception of God falls into this category: Whatever science finds about nature is an attribute of God. Period. How does science test that? It doesn't....
i agree. if there is no difference between "nature" and "God"(or "everything in the Universe" and "God") then it is a pointless distinction.
as Trans would say, we already have a word for that. it's called "everything in the Universe"
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 02-19-2018 at 02:36 PM..
religion seeks to address: ethics, integrity, compassion, generosity, kindness, honesty, dignity, respect, humbleness, bringing the sacred into the mundane, accountability, personal responsibility, bringing peace into the world, being in relationship with the Creator.
do you look to science for guidance in those arenas? Where do you look to for guidance in those areas in terms of authority, resources, subject matter expertise, instructions, practical how-to steps? What is the "gold standard" for you in those areas in being held to a high level of integrity and personal responsibility?
Should you beat your children with a rod, so long as the diameter of the rod is less than the diameter of your thumb? If your goal is to raise emotionally healthy children, then science can, in principle, address this question. Should adulterers be stoned to death by angry mobs? Obviously this depends on certain personal values that science probably cannot assess, but if you live in a society that values freedom of thought and lifestyles, then science probably can assess the wisdom of stoning adulterers in terms of the overall goals of society.
But, more importantly, I want to know what justification people use for their moral beliefs.
Consider:
Me: Is X a good moral practice?
Christian: Yes!
Me: Why?
Christian: Because it says so in the Bible.
Me: And why do you believe that the Bible is a good guide for moral behavior?
Christian: Because science has proven that the Bible is historically accurate and it reveals truths about the world that science verifies.
Me: That's not right. If anything, science reveals a great deal of misinformation in the Bible. So if you are basing your morality on faith in the inerrancy of the Bible, then you are basing your faith on something has proven to be unreliable.
Christian: Well, even if the Bible is historically and scientifically unreliable, it is still a good guide to morality.
Me: Why?
Christian: Because the Bible says so.
And so on.
As for me, I don't look for any infallible authority on morality. I look for evidence of what offers the most benefits to individuals and society based on some basic foundational concepts such as balancing the needs for individual freedom with the need for social order, respect for diversity, etc. Obviously there is plenty of room for disagreements over virtually every aspect of this quest for moral wisdom, but that is just another aspect of what I keep referring to as the "messy" nature of life.
BTW: I know you probably won't watch this because you've already decided that you won't listen to anything that Sam Harris has to say (and this saddens me because I would really love to hear your reactions to him), but for what it's worth, this TED Talk explicitly tackles the question of what science can say about morality: https://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris..._right#t-40642
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 02-19-2018 at 03:00 PM..
What is strange is how you misstate, misrepresent and/or totally misconstrue anything that you disagree with.
Since our reality IS God, then science is finding out a lot about God. I look to science to GROUND my beliefs about God in reality and rationality, NOT magic and superstition. What is irrational is to look to the human-created beliefs about God without discernment and taking everything ancient humans have said about God as truth. When you claim to employ discernment but you use NO standard for Truth, then that is NOT discernment. That is self-deception.
if someone dismisses the wisdom and mastery given to us by sages across time and space and culture as "magic and superstition" then it is clear they don't understand or value what is on offer.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 02-19-2018 at 06:27 PM..
But, more importantly, I want to know what justification people use for their moral beliefs.
Consider:
Me: Is X a good moral practice?
Christian: Yes!
Me: Why?
Christian: Because it says so in the Bible.
Me: And why do you believe that the Bible is a good guide for moral behavior?
Christian: Because science has proven that the Bible is historically accurate and it reveals truths about the world that science verifies.
Me: That's not right. If anything, science reveals a great deal of misinformation in the Bible. So if you are basing your morality on faith in the inerrancy of the Bible, then you are basing your faith on something has proven to be unreliable.
Christian: Well, even if the Bible is historically and scientifically unreliable, it is still a good guide to morality.
Me: Why?
Christian: Because the Bible says so.
And so on.
Just your classic circular argument, which will keep going on and on forever and ever!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
